Hello.
I just want to bring another example on the table. Hope I am not
messing things up too much.
What about multi-column information? I want to store information about
db indexes that have a name, can span multiple columns and be of
different types. I know this is probably out of scope for cayenne as a
ORM, but very useful for us since we already store all other schema-
related information in the model.
If we go with a generic property map with string values, such
information could be encoded into the String, but it will not be very
pretty..
dbEntity.setProperty("DB-INDEX", "name: myindex, type: unique,
columns: col1, col2");
Regards,
- Tore.
On Apr 14, 2009, at 10:43 , Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Yes, this is a question of classification of "comment" property -
> whether we think it is "generic" or not...
>
> I don't have strong feelings either ways. My criteria for a generic
> property as "being irrelevant to Cayenne runtime" may not apply to
> comments if you use comments in DB schema generation. (BTW, is there
> a plan to do that?).
>
> So I am +0 on making comment an ivar. But please (re)open a separate
> Jira for that.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid I don't actually catch the point. This sounds like two
>> separate
>> tasks.
>> Comments that are (re) engineered to SQL comments cannot be
>> generic, because
>> as far as I know, SQL specifies only one string per column, table
>> etc.
>> Generic properties are more flexible, but they cannot be saved in
>> DB. And I
>> don't like the idea of having generic property map this one
>> "specific"
>> comment key, because it makes the design blurry. So possibly we
>> could open
>> both tasks (?)
>>
>> Andrey
>>
>> 2009/4/14 Aristedes Maniatis <ar..sh.com.au>
>>
>>>
>>> On 14/04/2009, at 6:13 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no problem with the reduced scope. But can we still make it a
>>>> generic property map initialized lazily and attached to
>>>> DbAtrtribute or
>>>> DbEntity, with comments being just one of the possible fields in
>>>> it? I.e.
>>>> the idea to group any properties not relevant to Cayenne runtime
>>>> functioning
>>>> in an untyped Map<String, Object>, instead of declaring them as
>>>> ivars
>>>>
>>>
>>> Map<String, String> might be easier unless we want to go to the
>>> trouble of
>>> typing these objects in both Cayenne modeler with another popup
>>> option and
>>> also in the XML. Mostly the user can cast them into some other
>>> data type if
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Ari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------->
>>> ish
>>> http://www.ish.com.au
>>> Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia
>>> phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001
>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Apr 15 2009 - 07:30:10 EDT